I was experimenting with making a DSL and ran across something that confuses me. In my call method I wanted to set an initial value for #mymethod before evaulating the block. It works if I assign to the variable directly:
class Test
class << self
attr_accessor :mymethod
end
def self.call(&block)
#mymethod="foo"
class_eval &block
end
end
Test.call do
puts "mymethod returned: #{mymethod}"
mymethod = "bar"
puts "mymethod is now: #{mymethod}"
end
Which returns:
[1] pry(main)> load 'test.rb'
mymethod returned: foo
mymethod is now: bar
=> true
But I feel like this should work and it doesn't. The only thing that has changed is the # has been removed from the assignment to mymethod so I think it should be using the mymethod= method created by attr_accessor:
class Test
class << self
attr_accessor :mymethod
end
def self.call(&block)
mymethod="foo"
class_eval &block
end
end
Test.call do
puts "mymethod returned: #{mymethod}"
mymethod = "bar"
puts "mymethod is now: #{mymethod}"
end
However the assignment to mymethod from within call fails while the same assignment inside the block succeeds:
[1] pry(main)> load 'test.rb'
mymethod returned:
mymethod is now: bar
=> true
What's going on here? Can someone explain to my why the assignment would fail inside the call method?
in your case, mymethod="foo" will define mymethod local variable
rather than call mymethod= method.
use self.mymethod="foo" instead
Related
I found this neat delegator based 'tee' implementation on SO:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/6410202/2379703
And I'm curious what is means for #targets (instance variable) means in the context of a class method:
require 'logger'
class MultiDelegator
def initialize(*targets)
#targets = targets
end
def self.delegate(*methods)
methods.each do |m|
define_method(m) do |*args|
#targets.map { |t| t.send(m, *args) }
end
end
self
end
class <<self
alias to new
end
end
log_file = File.open("debug.log", "a")
log = Logger.new MultiDelegator.delegate(:write, :close).to(STDOUT, log_file)
I get that it defining the methods write/close but #targets isn't even defined at this point since .to (aliased to new) has yet to be called so I'd assume #targets is nil.
Can anyone give an explanation as to the logistics of how this code works? Does ruby not even attempt to access/resolve #targets until the method in question is attempted to be called, which would be by the logger after it was instantiated?
The define_method method is called on a class to create an instance method. Inside that method, the self (and the instance variable) are instances of the class.
For example:
class Foo
#bar = "CLASS"
def initialize
#bar = "INSTANCE"
end
def self.make_method
define_method :whee do
p #bar
end
end
end
begin
Foo.new.whee
rescue NoMethodError=>e
puts e
end
#=> undefined method `whee' for #<Foo:0x007fc0719794b8 #bar="INSTANCE">
Foo.make_method
Foo.new.whee
#=> "INSTANCE"
It is correct that you can ask about instance variables that have never been created, at any time:
class Bar
def who_dat
puts "#dat is #{#dat.inspect}"
end
end
Bar.new.who_dat
#=> dat is nil
The same is true of other aspects of the language. As long as the code in the method is syntactically valid, it may be defined, even if invoking it causes a runtime error:
class Jim
def say_stuff
stuff!
end
end
puts "Good so far!"
#=> Good so far!
j = Jim.new
begin
j.say_stuff
rescue Exception=>e
puts e
end
#=> undefined method `stuff!' for #<Jim:0x007f9c498852d8>
# Let's add the method now, by re-opening the class
class Jim # this is not a new class
def stuff!
puts "Hello, World!"
end
end
j.say_stuff
#=> "Hello, World!"
In the above I define a say_stuff method that is syntactically valid, but that calls a method that does not exist. This is find. The method is created, but not invoked.
Then I try to invoke the method, and it causes an error (which we catch and handle cleanly).
Then I add the stuff! method to the class. Now I can run the say_stuff method (on the same instance as before!) and it works just fine.
This last example shows how defining a method does not run it, or require that it would even work when it is run. It is dynamically evaluated each time it is invoked (and only at that time).
There is a pretty good documentation of the current implementation of refinements in ruby here:
http://ruby-doc.org//core-2.2.0/doc/syntax/refinements_rdoc.html,
but there are some strange corner cases.
First, include module is orthogonal to using module (one include the instance method of module while the other activates the refinement). But there is a trick to include a refinement module itself, see
Better way to turn a ruby class into a module than using refinements?.
def to_module(klass)
Module.new do
#note that we return the refinement module itself here
return refine(klass) {
yield if block_given?
}
end
end
class Base
def foo
"foo"
end
end
class Receiver
include to_module(Base) {
def foo
"refined " + super
end
}
end
Receiver.new.foo #=> "refined foo"
Strangely this refinement module can't be used with using!
m=to_module(Base) {}
m.class #=> Module
using m
#=>TypeError: wrong argument type Class (expected Module)
So using only work on the enclosing module of the refinement modules.
Secondly I wanted to use the above yield trick to be able to pass a Proc to refine (even through it only accepts a block), without resorting to converting the Proc back to source as in
https://www.new-bamboo.co.uk/blog/2014/02/05/refinements-under-the-knife/.
But using yield as in the include example does not work:
def ref_module1(klass)
Module.new do
refine(klass) {
yield
}
end
end
class Receiver1
using ref_module1(Base) {
def foo
"refined " + super
end
}
def bar
Base.new.foo
end
end
Receiver1.new.bar #=> NoMethodError: super: no superclass method `foo'
We see that Receiver1 still use Bar#foo and not the refined method.
Howewer we can use module_eval instead:
def ref_module2(klass,&b)
Module.new do
refine(klass) {
module_eval(&b)
}
end
end
class Receiver2
using ref_module2(Base) {
def foo
"refined " + super
end
}
def bar
Base.new.foo
end
end
Receiver2.new.bar #=> "refined foo"
I don't quite understand why module_eval works here and not the yield method. Inside the refinement block, the 'default_definee' is the refinement module, so module_eval which puts the 'default_definee' to self='the refinement module' should not affect it. And indeed in the 'include' example at the beginning, I get the same result when I use module_eval or a direct yield.
Can anyone explain this behavior?
Context (or binding) is the reason why module_eval works and yield doesn't in your last set of examples. It actually has nothing to do with refinements, as demonstrated below.
Starting with module_eval:
class Foo
def run(&block)
self.class.module_eval(&block)
end
end
foo = Foo.new
foo.run {
def hello
"hello"
end
}
puts foo.hello # => "hello"
puts hello => # '<main>': undefined method 'hello' for main:Object (NameError)
In Foo#run we call module_eval on Foo. This switches the context (self) to be Foo. The result is much like we had simple defined hello inside of class Foo originally.
Now let's take a look at yield:
class Foo
def run
yield
end
end
foo = Foo.new
foo.run {
def hello
"hello"
end
}
puts hello # => "hello"
puts foo.hello # => '<main>': private method 'hello' called for ...
yield simply invokes the block in its original context, which in this example would be <main>. When the block is invoked, the end result is exactly the same as if the method were defined at the top level normally:
class Foo
def run
yield
end
end
foo = Foo.new
def hello
"hello"
end
puts hello # => "hello"
puts foo.hello # => '<main>': private method 'hello' called for ...
You might notice that foo seems to have the hello method in the yield examples. This is a side effect of defining hello as a method at the top level. It turns out that <main> is just an instance of Object, and defining top level methods is really just defining private methods on Object which nearly everything else ends up inheriting. You can see this by opening up irb and running the following:
self # => main
self.class # => Object
def some_method
end
"string".method(:some_method) # => #<Method: String(Object)#some_method>
Now back to your examples.
Here's what happens in the yield example:
def ref_module1(klass)
Module.new do
refine(klass) {
yield
}
end
end
class Receiver1
# like my yield example, this block is going to
# end up being invoked in its original context
using ref_module1(Base) {
def foo
"I'm defined on Receiver1"
end
}
def bar
# calling foo here will simply call the original
# Base#foo method
Base.new.foo
end
end
# as expected, if we call Receiver1#bar
# we get the original Base#foo method
Receiver1.new.bar # => "foo"
# since the block is executed in its original context
# the method gets defined in Receiver1 -- its original context
Receiver1.new.foo # => "I'm defined on Receiver1"
As for module_eval, it works in your examples because it causes the block to be run in the context of the new module, rather than on the Receiver1 class.
I try to write a metaprogramming for execute a method before 'master' method. Why ? Because, I have several class and it's ugly to repeat the call in the head of the method
Case :
class MyClass
include MySuperModule
before :method, call: before_method
def before_method
puts "Before.."
end
end
class SomeClass < MyClass
def method
puts "Method.."
end
end
module MySuperModule
# the awesome code
end
Output :
SomeClass.new.method => "Before.. Method.."
So, I try write a module with ClassMethodsor method_missingwithout success.
You don't need a gem for simple metaprogramming like this. What you can do is redefine the "after" method to call the "before" method and then the original "after" method.
This works even when using before multiple times on the same method or when creating a chain of before calls.
module MySuperModule
def before meth, opts
old_method = instance_method(meth)
define_method(meth) do
send opts[:call]
old_method.bind(self).call
end
end
end
class MyClass
extend MySuperModule
def foo
puts "foo"
end
def bar
puts "bar"
end
def baz
puts "baz"
end
before :foo, call: :bar
before :bar, call: :baz
end
MyClass.new.foo
# baz
# bar
# foo
If it is just for subclassing purposes you can take advantage of Module#prepend:
class Superclass
def self.inherited(subclass)
# subclass.send :prepend, Module.new { on Ruby < 2.1
subclass.prepend Module.new {
def method
before_method
super
end
}
end
def before_method
puts 'Before'
end
end
class Subclass < Superclass
def method
puts 'Method'
end
end
Subclass.new.method
#=> Before
#=> Method
What you are looking for is Aspect oriented programming support for ruby. There are several gems implementing this, like aquarium.
Another way to do this is to use the rcapture gem.
It is pretty awesome.
Eg:
require 'rcapture'
class A
# Makes the class intercept able
include RCapture::Interceptable
def first
puts 'first'
end
def second
puts 'second'
end
end
# injects methods to be called before each specified instance method.
A.capture_pre :methods => [:first, :second] do
puts "hello"
end
n = A.new
n.first
n.second
produces:
hello
first
hello
second
Maybe you can use a decorator. In ruby there is a nice gem called 'drapeer'. See Drapper Link
Every call in ruby runs through set_trace_func so you can hook into that and call exactly what you want. Not the prettiest solution and there are better ways but it does work. Another option is the Hooks gem, though I haven't tried it myself, it looks like it should give you the ability to do what you want.
module MySuperModule
# the awesome code
end
class MyClass
include MySuperModule
def before_method
puts "Before.."
end
end
class SomeClass < MyClass
def method
puts "Method.."
end
end
set_trace_func proc { |event, file, line, id, binding, class_name|
if event == "call" && class_name == SomeClass && id == :method
caller = binding.eval("self")
caller.send(:before_method)
end
}
SomeClass.new.method
#=> Before..
#=> Method..
I am writing a class method to create another class method. There seems to be some strangeness around how class_eval and instance_eval operate within the context of a class method. To illustrate:
class Test1
def self.add_foo
self.class_eval do # does what it says on the tin
define_method :foo do
puts "bar"
end
end
end
end
Test1.add_foo # creates new instance method, like I'd expect
Test1.new.foo # => "bar"
class Test2
def self.add_foo
self.instance_eval do # seems to do the same as "class_eval"
define_method :foo do
puts "bar"
end
end
end
end
Test2.add_foo # what is happening here?!
Test2.foo # => NoMethodError
Test2.new.foo # => "bar"
class Test3
def self.add_foo
(class << self; self; end).instance_eval do # call explicitly on metaclass
define_method :foo do
puts "bar"
end
end
end
end
Test3.add_foo # => creates new class method, as I'd expect
Test3.foo # => "bar"
My understanding is that class methods are instance methods defined on the metaclass of the class in question (Test2 in this case). Based on that logic, I would expect the receiver for the class method call add_foo to be the metaclass.
What is self referring to inside the Test2.add_foo method?
Why does calling instance_eval on this receiver object create an instance method?
The main difference between instance_eval and class_eval is that instance_eval works within the context of an instance, while class_eval works within the context of a class. I am not sure how familiar you are with Rails, but let's look at this for an example:
class Test3 < ActiveRecord::Base
end
t = Test3.first
t.class_eval { belongs_to :test_25 } #=> Defines a relationship to test_25 for this instance
t.test_25 #=> Method is defined (but fails because of how belongs_to works)
t2 = Test3.find(2)
t2.test_25 #=> NoMethodError
t.class.class_eval { belongs_to :another_test }
t.another_test #=> returns an instance of another_test (assuming relationship exists)
t2.another_test #=> same as t.another_test
t.class_eval { id } #=> NameError
t.instance_eval { id } #=> returns the id of the instance
t.instance_eval { belongs_to :your_mom } #=> NoMethodError
This happens because belongs_to is actually a method call that happens within the context of the class body, which you cannot call from an instance. When you try to call id with class_eval, it fails because id is a method defined on an instance, not in a class.
Defining methods with both class_eval and instance_eval work essentially the same when called against an instance. They will define a method only on the instance of the object it is called against.
t.class_eval do
def some_method
puts "Hi!"
end
end
t.instance_eval do
def another_method
puts "Hello!"
end
end
t.some_method #=> "Hi!"
t.another_method #=> "Hello!"
t2.some_method #=> NoMethodError
t2.another_method #=> NoMethodError
They differ, however, when dealing with the class.
t.class.class_eval do
def meow
puts "meow!"
end
end
t.class.instance_eval do
def bark
puts "woof!"
end
end
t.meow #=> meow!
t2.meow #=> meow!
t.bark #=> NoMethodError
t2.bark #=> NoMethodError
So where did bark go? It got defined on the instance of the class' singleton class. I'll explain more below. But for now:
t.class.bark #=> woof!
Test3.bark #=> woof!
So to answer your question about what self is referring to within the class body, you can construct a little test:
a = class Test4
def bar
puts "Now, I'm a #{self.inspect}"
end
def self.baz
puts "I'm a #{self.inspect}"
end
class << self
def foo
puts "I'm a #{self.inspect}"
end
def self.huh?
puts "Hmmm? indeed"
end
instance_eval do
define_method :razors do
puts "Sounds painful"
end
end
"But check this out, I'm a #{self.inspect}"
end
end
puts Test4.foo #=> "I'm a Test4"
puts Test4.baz #=> "I'm a Test4"
puts Test4.new.bar #=> Now I'm a #<Test4:0x007fa473358cd8>
puts a #=> But check this out, I'm a #<Class:Test4>
So what is happening here is that in the first puts statement above, we see that inspect is telling us that self within the context of a class method body is referring to the class Test4. In the second puts, we see the same thing, it's just defined differently (using the self.method_name notation for defining class methods). In the third, we see that self refers to an instance of Test4. The last one is a bit interesting because what we see is that self is referring to an instance of Class called Test4. That is because when you define a class, you're creating an object. Everything in Ruby is an object. This instance of object is called the metaclass or the eigenclass or singleton class.
You can access the eigenclass with the class << self idiom. While you're in there, you actually have access to the internals of the eigenclass. You can define instance methods inside of the eigenclass, which is congruent with calling self.method_name. But since you are within the context of the eigenclass, you can attach methods to the eigenclass' eigenclass.
Test4.huh? #=> NoMethodError
Test4.singleton_class.huh? #=> Hmmm? indeed
When you call instance_eval in the context of a method, you're really calling instance_eval on the class itself, which means that you are creating instance methods on Test4. What about where I called instance_eval inside of the eigenclass? It creates a method on the instance of Test4's eigenclass:
Test4.razors #=> Sounds painful
Hopefully, this clears up a few of your questions. I know that I have learned a few things typing out this answer!
I'm writing a function to dynamically create classes. I run into a problem with the *vars variable (below), where inside the block passed to Class::new, the "def initialize" method cannot see the value of *vars (and thus Ruby reports a unbound variable error on *vars).
What to do?
Thanks!
class MyParentClass
def do_something_with(*args)
end
def do_something_else_with(*vars)
end
end
def create_class(class_name,*vars)
new_class = Class::new(MyParentClass) do
def initialize(*args)
super
do_something_with(args)
do_something_else_with(vars)
end
end
Object::const_set(class_name.intern,new_class)
end
# Ruby: Error: *vars is unbound variable
# My notes: *vars is in scope inside the do..end block passed to Class::new, but cannot be seen inside def initialize (why?) . And, how to fix this?
I am not sure what are you trying to achieve with this contraption, but after some changes it works (well, depending on your definition of "to work"):
class MyParentClass
def do_something_with(*args)
puts "something #{args.inspect}"
end
def do_something_else_with(*vars)
puts "else #{vars.inspect}"
end
end
def create_class(class_name,*vars)
new_class = Class::new(MyParentClass) do
define_method :initialize do |*args|
super()
do_something_with(*args)
do_something_else_with(*vars)
end
end
Object::const_set(class_name.intern,new_class)
end
create_class :MyClass, 1, :foo, :bar
MyClass.new(2, :baz)
The trick to make vars visible is to define the constructor using a closure.